From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hinkle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Aug 29, 2000
25 S.W.3d 691 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. ED77118

FILED: August 29, 2000

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CITY OF ST. LOUIS, HONORABLE THOMAS C. GRADY.

Mary S. Choi, Assistant Public Defender, 1221 Locust Street, Suite 350, St. Louis, MO., 63103, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General and Gregory L. Barnes, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO., 65102, for Respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, P.J., Mary Rhodes Russell, J., and Richard B. Teitelman, J.



ORDER


Dennis Hinkle (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing. We affirmed Movant's conviction for first degree tampering, section 569.080.1(2), RSMo 1994, on direct appeal. State v. Hinkle, 987 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999). Movant now challenges the failure of his counsel to object to evidence of other crimes.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the exclusive use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Hinkle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Aug 29, 2000
25 S.W.3d 691 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Hinkle v. State

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS HINKLE, Appellant, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One

Date published: Aug 29, 2000

Citations

25 S.W.3d 691 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)